Might try rubbing some turpentine on your nuts. Oh wait that's for a completely other problem.

Never mind regards

Bubba

12-03-2008, 08:00 PM

Patrick Johndrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe S.

I've been told something like I'm not as big a prick as I've been thought after people have gotten to know better....

Now Joe don’t go short selling yourself there….you’re one…if not the biggest prick I know.

We still love ya regards

12-03-2008, 08:55 PM

Joe S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Johndrow

Now Joe don’t go short selling yourself there….you’re one…if not the biggest prick I know.

We still love ya regards

Hey, contrary to what those women may have been trying to say, I'm not short at all...:(:o:cool:;-)

Dude, is it possible to GdG a thread in a place where all the thread are considered GdG?

Perspective Is Everything Regards,

Joe S.

12-03-2008, 10:37 PM

Legacy 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by IowaBayDog

This topic came up at work with the same arguments going around. There would be no difference between activated NG troops and Active Duty Military. THere are already hundreds of thousands of Active Duty Military stationed stateside at any time, giving a few of them a domestic "job" seems more reasonable than taxing and already overworked part time volunteer force.

I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week! :barf:

Thank you... The National Guard and Reserve forces are a weekend warrior force. When they are home, they have to do their own jobs, except in cases of emergency, Like Katrina or Ike... that doesn't mean I agree with the sentiment that us active duty guys should be deployed within the US...

In fact, I guess that I can't really agree OR disagree. It's unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in the case of Declared War. The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act... which (according to my stupid stupid Conservative brain stuff) substantially limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances only authorized by Congress... IOW, Unconstitutional.

12-04-2008, 07:06 AM

Joe S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legacy 6

It's unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in the case of Declared War.

Please check with the JAG office.

It is not unconstitutional to deploy troops within the US except in case of Declared War in the least. There are NUMEROUS occassions were active duty military or federalized National Guard/Reserve troops have been deployed. As you mentioned, the response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita spring to mind immediately.

The installation commander is authorized in most cases, without approval of HHQ, to provide aid to the local community in support of disaster relief operations or to combat an imminent disaster. I seem to recall military members from Grand Forks AFB being used for sandbag details and the like during flood season when I was stationed there, but I am certainly open for correction. I also think that active duty military personnel have been used to fight fires in many of the western states, but again, I'm open for correction.

Now, using active duty military to enforce domestice laws is, as I understand it, a violation fo the Posse Comitatus Act.

Quote:

The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act... which (according to my stupid stupid Conservative brain stuff) substantially limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances only authorized by Congress... IOW, Unconstitutional.

In the referenced Washington Post piece it said 8% of the force would be assigned to law enforcement in a force protection role, it said nothing about using U.S. troops as civilian law enforcement officials nor have I been able to find any reference to it in any other article. A force protection role would be similar to a posted sentry at an entry control point to a military installation which is certainly allowed now. There is no mention of using active duty military to enforce traffic laws or investigate common crimes. In fact, it seems that they have taken great pains to explain that they will not be used in that role.

Again, the discussion is centered on a response to a MASSIVE situation. An IND, RDD, Chem, Bio, CAT 12 Hurricane where the local, state, regional response efforts will be RAPIDLY overwhelmed. To suggest that should an IND explode in Kansas City that local, state, regional or perhaps even the enhanced Federal response be enough to resolve the situation may not be accurate. And that is just one city at one time. Given the aQ MO of using multiple-attacks in multiple places it could be several cities all at the same time or within a short timeframe. National response capability as it currently exists would be taxed to or beyond the breaking point.

The National Response Framework and it's supporting annexes and appendicies, coupled with HSPD-5 provide the national response protocols. Is this proposal spooky and worthy of considerable independent oversite? Clearly, without the slightest bit of doubt...just like any operation the Government does that has the potential to abuse the power they have been entrusted with.

Is it unconstitutional as currently identified?

Beats me. I've only slept at a Holiday Inn Express. It doesnt' seem to me to be in the least given the current known scope and nature of the response protocols and the fact that it is being talked about by and in the public, which sets this apart from say, warrentless domestic spying.

I would further suggest that if planning were not underway to use all available resources in the event of a massive response or clearly imminent emergency someone is going to ask why that specific resource was not committed to the response. When thousands or potentially millions of our citizens are actively suffering, "Because it was against the rules..." doesn't seem to hold up well under the stark light of reality.

IMHDAO (ubp, K2, Inc.) Regards,

Joe S.

12-04-2008, 08:29 AM

IowaBayDog

After a long debate about this at work it was apparent that folks seem to have a stigma about the Active Duty Military and not the National Guard. They are both made up of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors. One is no more evil than the other.

I can understand the opposition to the idea on Constitutional grounds even though I don't agree with it. If you are against this type of allocation of resources you would have to be OK with a situation where a "major" event/attack took place in L.A. and the 30,000 or so Marines at Pendleton sat on their hands and said "Sorry we can't help" while a group made its way up the coast to further their attacks. The NG might get together in a week or so to put together a sufficient response. Not really a good use of resources IMHO.

I guess having been in the military I don't have that evil tin hat feeling when it comes to the motivations of those that are in the Military.

12-04-2008, 10:22 AM

Legacy 6

National Defense and Natural Disaster are one thing...

Deploying troops within the US to assist in "police" and "security" type missions, IOW to enforce the laws - is quite another.

We could talk about the NG troops doing security at Airports, and we could also talk about Marshal Law... but I'm not going to go into that...

12-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legacy 6

National Defense and Natural Disaster are one thing...

Deploying troops within the US to assist in "police" and "security" type missions, IOW to enforce the laws - is quite another.

We could talk about the NG troops doing security at Airports, and we could also talk about Marshal Law... but I'm not going to go into that...

Well, I saw military in the streets of Washington DC during the riots of the late 60s. Didn't stop to ask if they were NG or active military ... just got directions to get the heck out of there. Believe the same thing was going on in Newark NJ at the time. Exits on the NJ Turnpike into the city were closed.

Armed soldiers in the streets are pretty scary ... but it seems that there are times when they have been called upon in the past.

12-04-2008, 03:11 PM

luvalab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Armed soldiers in the streets are pretty scary ... but it seems that there are times when they have been called upon in the past.

I agree. But I don't really have an issue with "called upon."

I guess I see "called upon" and "ready and waiting to be called upon at a moment's notice" as two totally different animals!

12-04-2008, 04:10 PM

Marvin S

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe S.

I seem to recall military members from Grand Forks AFB being used for sandbag details and the like during flood season when I was stationed there,

In the early 1900's (?) the CO State Patrol Troopers were called upon to restore order in a strike. In the resulting incident some unarmed strikers were shot & killed. When we lived there in the early 60's the Courtesy Patrol as they were then called were unarmed even in the process of doing their duties.

Did the sandbag thing at Offutt in the early 50's to help the local citizenry in Omaha. We did that with only our fatigues & strong backs being the required gear - no weapons. What I rememember to this day was the Red Cross showing up, seeing we were a bunch of GI's & leaving to then go over, & give the paid help, $3 an hour, all the refreshments. The Salvation Army showed up about an hour later & gave us coffee, a donut & a cigar.